Kerala High Court
Mathrubhumi Printing And Publishing ... vs P. Rajan And Anr. on 29 July, 2005
Equivalent citations: (2006)ILLJ521KER
Author: K.S. Radhakrishnan
Bench: K.S. Radhakrishnan, S. Siri Jagan
JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") is the appellant before us. They are aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge holding that last part of Section 5(l)(a)(i) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (for short "Working Journalists Act") be read down and disciplinary action mentioned in the sub-section be considered to mean only disciplinary action for riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on the part of the employee or any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude during the course of his employment.
2. The first respondent, an Assistant Editor of the Company, was charge sheeted for misconduct of raising false allegations against the Managing Director of the company and of using discourteous language and on various other misconducts. Enquiry was conducted and accepting the enquiry report, the first respondent was dismissed from service on June 20, 1988. An industrial dispute was raised and the Industrial Tribunal upheld the order of dismissal and award was passed. First respondent challenged the award in O.P. No. 6920 of 1990 which was dismissed against which he filed W. A. No. 1694 of 1994 and the same was also dismissed. Special Leave Petition filed by the first respondent before the Supreme Court was also dismissed.
3. Appellant company did not disburse the gratuity claimed by the respondent-journalist since under Section 5(l)(a)(i) of the Working Journalists Act, if service of the working journalist was terminated for misconduct he is not entitled to get gratuity. Working journalist is also not entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. First respondent therefore approached this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Section 5(l)(a)(i) of the Working Journalists Act, especially last paragraph of the Section, contending that the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He also sought for a declaration that the provision is discriminatory, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Company stating that the first respondent is governed by Section 5 of the Working Journalists Act and as per the said provision if the service of the employee has been terminated by way of disciplinary action he is not entitled to gratuity. Eligibility factor, computation of gratuity and various other aspects are different from the corresponding factors provided in the Gratuity Act, 1972 and therefore it was contended that the special provision in the Working Journalists Act is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
5. Learned single Judge however allowed the writ petition and the judgment is reported in 2002 ILR (3) Kerala 300 (Rajan v. Union of India). Learned single Judge held that the provision denying gratuity to the working journalist in the last part of Section 5(l)(a)(i) of the Working Journalists Act due to termination of service by way of disciplinary proceedings is arbitrary and discriminatory. However, instead of declaring the Section as 5(l)(a)(i) should be read down to mean only disciplinary action for riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part of any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of employment.
6. Counsel appearing for the Company Sri. U.K. Ramakrishnan submitted that learned single Judge has committed an error in reading down the provision so as to be in conformity with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Counsel referred to Section 16 of the Working Journalists Act and submitted that the provisions of that Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent thereunder contained in any other law or in the terms of any award, agreement or contract of service, whether made before or after the commencement of the Act. Counsel submitted Working Journalists Act being a special legislation dealing with working journalists, provisions of that Act will have overruling effect over the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Counsel appearing for the first respondent Smt. Preethi submitted that there is no justification in denying gratuity to the working journalists alone when their services are terminated due to disciplinary proceedings. Counsel submitted that last paragraph of Section 5(l)(a)(i) is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
7. Working Journalists Act is an Act enacted to regulate the conditions of service of working journalists and other persons employed in newspaper establishments. The Apex Court in All India Reporter Karamchari Sangh and Ors. v. All India Reporter Limited and Ors. held that the Act is beneficial legislation and enacted for the purpose of improving the conditions of service of the employees of newspaper establishments. Government of India had appointed a Press Commission to enquire into the state of press in India, its present and future lines of development and in particular, to examine the method of recruitment, training, scales of remuneration, benefits and other conditions of employment of working journalists, settlement of disputes affecting them and factors which influence the establishment and maintenance of high professional standards. Claim for minimum wage was also considered by the Commission. Applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act to the working journalists was also considered and the Commission came to the conclusion that the working journalists did not come within the definition of "workman" as it stood at that time in the Industrial Disputes Act. Press Commission had also considered the question as to the tenure of appointment of the minimum period of notice for termination of the employment of the working journalists, hours of work, provision for leave, retirement benefits and gratuity and made certain recommendations with regard to notice period, bonus, minimum wages, Sunday rest, leave, provident fund and gratuity. Following the report of the Press Commission, Parliament passed the Working Journalists Act, 1955 which enabled the application of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to working journalists. Parliament had discussed the matter including the recommendation made by the Press Commission. Later Government introduced the Bill on November 30, 1955 to regulate the conditions of service of working journalists and other persons employed in newspaper establishments. Recommendations of the Press Commission in regard to the minimum wages and other aspects, were left to the Minimum Wages Board to be constituted for the purpose by the Central Government. Later Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 was passed and the assent of the President was received on December 20, 1955. Constitutional validity of various provisions of the Working Journalists Act was challenged before the Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution on the ground that it violated the fundamental rights guaranteed to newspaper Management under Articles 14, 19(l)(a) and 19(l)(g) of the Constitution. Validity of the decision of the Wage Board constituted under Section 8 was also challenged on various grounds. Repelling the contention, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Express Newspaper (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. held as follows:
The working journalists are thus a group by themselves and could be classified as such apart from other employees of newspaper establishments and if the Legislature embarked upon a legislation for the purpose of ameliorating their conditions of service there was nothing discriminatory about it. They could be singled out thus for preferential treatment against the other employees of newspaper establishments. A classification of this type could not come within the ban of Article 14. The only thing which is prohibited under this article is that persons belonging to a particular group or class should not be treated differently as amongst themselves and no such charge could be levelled against this piece of legislation. If this group of working journalists was specially treated in this manner there is no scope for the objection that that group had a special legislation enacted for its benefit or that a special machinery was created, for fixing the rate of its wages different from the machinery employed for other workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The payment of retrenchment compensation and gratuities, the regulation of their hours of work and the fixation of the rates of their wages as compared with those of other workmen in the newspaper establishments could also be enacted without any such disability and the machinery for fixing their rates of wages by way of constituting a Wage Board for the purpose could be similarly devised.
The Apex Court therefore came to the conclusion that none of the provisions of the Act is violative of the fundamental right enshrined in Article 19(1 )(a), 19(l)(g), 14 and/or 32 of the Constitution of India save the provisions contained in Section 5(l)(a)(iii) of the Act which is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution. Above mentioned decision was followed by the Apex Court in Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. . Management approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutional validity of Section 80(2) of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 contending that the definition excluded employee in paragraph 80(2) and suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India apart from imposing serious financial burden only on the newspaper establishments. The Apex Court tested the contention in the light of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court referred to the decision in Express Newspaper's case and stated as follows at p. 368 of LLJ:
34......It was observed that in framing the Scheme, various circumstances peculiar the press had to be taken into consideration. These considerations weighed with the Press Commission in recommending special treatment for working journalists in the matter of amelioration of their conditions of service. The position as prevailing in their countries was also noticed. In a nutshell, the working journalists were held as a group by themselves and could be classified as such. If the Legislature embarked upon a legislation for the purpose of ameliorating their conditions of service, there was nothing discriminatory about it, they could be singled out for preferential treatment. It was opined that classification of this type could not come within the ban of Article 14. Considering the position in regard to the alleged discrimination between press industry employers on one hand and the other industrial employers on the other, it was said that even considering the Act as a measure of social welfare legislation, the State, could only make a beginning somewhere without embarking on similar legislation in relation to all other industries and if that is done in this case no charge could be levelled against the State that it is discriminating against one industry as compared with the others. The classification could well be founded on geographical basis or be according to objects or occupations or the like. The only question for consideration would be whether there was a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act sought to be achieved. Both the conditions of permissible classification, were fulfilled. The classification was held to be based on an intelligible differentia which had a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved viz., the amelioration of the conditions of service of working journalists. The attack on constitutionality of the Act based on Article 14 was negatived.
The working journalists were held to be a class by themselves and hence separate enactment called Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 was enacted. Working Journalists have been dealt with in Chapter II of the said Act. Chapter II-A deals with Non-journalist Newspaper employees. Sections 3 to 13-AA apply exclusively to working journalists. Section 3 of the Act says that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 shall subject to the modification specified in Sub-section (2), apply to, or in relation to working journalists as they apply to, or in relation to workmen within the meaning of that Act. Section 8 of the Act deals with fixation or revision of rates of wages which says that the Central Government may fix rates of wages in respect of working journalists. Chapter II (sic) of the Act deals with powers and procedure of the Board and Section 10 deals with recommendation by the Board. Section 12 deals with the powers of Central Government to enforce recommendations of the Wage Board. Section 13-A also empowers the Government to fix interim rates of wages in respect of working journalists. Section 13-AA deals with constitution of Tribunal for fixing or revising rates of wages in respect of working journalists. Section 2(f) defines the word 'working journalist' to mean a person whose principal avocation is that of a journalist and who is employed as such, either whole time or part time, in, or in relation to, one or more newspaper establishments, and includes an editor, a leader-writer, news- editor, sub-editor, feature-writer, copy-tester, reporter, correspondent, cartoonist, news-photographer or proof reader but does not include any such person who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or being employed in supervisory capacity, performs either by the nature of the duties attached to his office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature. The definition of 'working journalist' takes in specified categories of persons. Consequently definition is restrictive. Definition clause also excludes certain categories of persons. Definition clause therefore is both inclusive and exclusive. Definition clause 2(f) will not fall under Chapter II. Provisions of Chapter II including Section 5 would not apply to that. So also persons who have been included in Chapter II-A deals with non-journalists falling under Section 2(f) are concerned, all the provisions of Chapter II would apply which takes in Section 5 as well. Section 5 of the Working Journalists Act deals with payment of gratuity which reads as follows:
5. Payment of gratuity. - (1) Where-
(a) any working journalist has been in continuous services, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, for not less than three years in any newspaper establishment, and-
(i) his services are terminated by the employer in relation to that newspaper establishment for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, or
(ii) he retires from service on reaching the age of superannuation; or
(b) any working journalist has been in continuous service, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, for not less than ten years in any newspaper establishment, and he voluntarily resigns on or after the 1st day of July 1961, from service in that newspaper establishment on any ground whatsoever other than on the ground of conscience; or
(c) any working journalist has been in continuous service, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, for not less than three years in any newspaper establishment and he voluntarily resigns on or after the 1st day of July 1961, from service in that establishment on the ground of conscience; or
(d) any working journalist dies while he is in service in any newspaper establishment, the working journalist or, in the case of his death, his nominee or nominees or, if there is no nomination in force at the time of the death of the working journalist, his family, as the case may be, shall, without prejudice to any benefits or rights accruing under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) be paid, on such termination, retirement, resignation or death, by the employer in relation to that establishment gratuity which shall be equivalent to fifteen days average pay for every completed year of service or any part thereof in excess of six months.
xx xx xx xx xx Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 deals with the terms and conditions for payment of gratuity to employees who are covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The said provisions is extracted below for easy reference.
4. Payment of gratuity:- (1) Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years.
(a) on his superannuation or
(b) on his retirement, or resignation, or
(c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease:
Provided that the completion of continuous service of five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the employment of any employee is due to death or disablement.
Provided further that in the case of death of the employee, gratuity payable to him shall be paid to his nominee or, if no nomination has been made, to his heirs, and where any such nominee or heir is a minor, the share of such minor, shall be deposited with the controlling authority who shall invest the same for the benefit of such minor in such bank or other financial institution, as may be prescribed, until such minor attains majority, if no nomination has been made, to his heirs.
Explanation: For the purposes of this Section, disablement means such disablement as incapacitates an employee for the work which he was capable of performing before the accident or disease resulting in such disablement.
(2) For every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months, the employer shall pay gratuity to an employee at the rate of fifteen days' wages based on the rate of wages last drawn by the employee concerned:
Provided that in the case of a piece-rated employee, daily wages shall be computed on the average of the total wages received by him for a period of three months immediately preceding the termination of his employment and, for this purpose, the wages paid for an overtime work shall not be taken into account;
Provided further that in the case of an, employee who is employed in a seasonal establishment and who is not so employed throughout the year, the employer shall pay the gratuity at the rate of seven days wages for each season.
Explanation:- In the case of a monthly rated employee, the fifteen days' wages shall be calculated by giving the monthly rate of wages last drawn by him twenty six and multiplying the quotient by fifteen.
(3) The amount of gratuity payable to an employee shall not exceed three lakhs and fifty thousand rupees.
(4) For the purpose of computing the gratuity payable to an employee who is employed, after his disablement, on reduced wages, his wages for the period preceding his disablement shall be taken to be the wages received by him during that period, and his wages for the period subsequent to his disablement shall be taken to be the wages as to reduced.
(5) Nothing in this Section shall affect the right of an employee to receive better terms of gratuity under any award or agreement or contract with the employer.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1) -
(a) the gratuity of an employee, whose service have been terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer, shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss I so caused;
(b) the gratuity payable to an employee may be wholly or partially forfeited-
(1) if the services of such employee have I been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part, or
(ii) if the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment.
When we compare both the provisions, there are material differences. So far as Section 5 of the Working Journalists Act is concerned, employee is entitled to get gratuity provided he has put in continued service of not less than three years in any newspaper establishment before or after the commencement of the Act and that his services are terminated by the employer in relation to newspaper establishment or for any reason whatsoever otherwise than as punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action or he retires at the eligible age of superannuation. So far as Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act is concerned, gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years on his superannuation, or on his retirement or resignation or on his death or disablement due to accident or otherwise. Clause (6) of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act stipulates that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused. It is also stipulated that gratuity payable to an employee may be wholly or partially forfeited if the service of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part, or if the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment.
8. Section 5 of the Working Journalists Act and Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act are structurally and contextually different and diverse. Requirements for payment of gratuity undo both the provisions for payment or gratuity under both the provisions are not alike. Respondent herein prayed that this Court should quash Section 5 (l)(a)(i) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act or in the alternative the said provision be read down in conformity with the Payment of Gratuity Act and to hold that he will be entitled to payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act. On a reading of Section 5 of the Working Journalists Act and Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, we find no inconsistency, nor any conflict between both the provisions and are governed by separate statutes and are mainly intended for separate categories of employees discriminatorily placed. Legislature in its wisdom has defined the term "working journalist" under the Working Journalists Act as a separate category. Separate provision has been enacted in Chapter II of the Act not only with regard to payment of gratuity but with regard to the hours of work, leave, fixation of revision of rates of wages and also for establishing Wage Board and other related matters.
9. Central Government also in exercise of its rule making power under Section 20 of the Act have framed rules called the Working Journalists Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Rules, 1957. Chapter II of the Rules deals with gratuity. Special provisions have been made by the rule making authority to determine to whom gratuity is to be payable on the death of the working journalist and also their nomination, provision for deduction from, gratuity. Chapter III deals with hours of work. Chapter IV deals with holidays and Chapter V leave. In other words, Legislature and the rule making authority always categorised working journalists as a separate class not only for the payment of gratuity but also for other service benefits. The Working Journalists Act is also enacted to regularise certain conditions of service of working journalists and the constitutional validity of such a legislation can always be presumed.
10. Working Journalists Act was therefore enacted taking into consideration the various circumstances peculiar to the newspaper establishment and also to journalists and they cannot be equated with employees governed by the Industrial Disputes Act in view of the special nature of work undertaken by the working journalist. Legislature felt that if the working journalist's service is terminated by way of disciplinary action he shall not be entitled to payment of gratuity unlike persons governed by the Payment of Gratuity Act. Under the Payment of Gratuity Act, gratuity could be forfeited only when service has been terminated for any act of wilful omission, negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, properly belonging to the employer. Gratuity could also be forfeited if the services of such employees have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part or the act constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment. As far as working journalist is concerned, if services are terminated by way of disciplinary proceeding due to the above mentioned reasons or due to any other misconduct while he is in service, gratuity could be forfeited.
11. The Legislature consciously wanted to treat working journalists as a separate class because of the privileged position they occupy in the society. They have the power to comment on the conduct of other people and publish the same for consumption of the general public, which may at times adversely affect the career and even life of such people. Because of this unique position journalist occupies in society, the Legislature thought that they should have stricter or higher moral and ethical standards unlike other workmen. It is to remind them of these higher and stricter standards and to make them arrange their conduct accordingly that appropriate restrictions have been made in the matter of payment of gratuity also, even while granting liberal terms of calculation of gratuity unlike in the case of other employees covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act. This is certainly a reasonable classification which cannot be hit by Art. 14 as held by the learned single Judge.
12. Learned Judge has taken the view that since Payment of Gratuity Act is more beneficial to the employee, the last paragraph of Section 5(l)(a)(i) of the Act is invalid and it has to be read down and disciplinary action mentioned in that Sub-section should be held to mean only disciplinary action for riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part or any act which constitute an offence involving moral turpitude provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of employment. We are of the view that this Court is not justified in re-writing the statutory provision which is the function of the Legislature. Provision like Section 5 was introduced in the Working Journalists Act so as to pin down the working journalists to rigorous standards of professional discipline inside and outside the establishment. While on duty, if they transgress limits of professional decorum and discipline, disciplinary action can be taken and if it ends in termination of service they will not be entitled to gratuity. Working journalists are also governed by the provisions of the Press Councils Act, 1978. Section 13 of the Act enables the Press Council to lay down Code of Conduct for newspapers and journalists in accordance with high professional standards. Power is also conferred on the Council to warn, admonish or censure newspaper if a working journalist has committed any professional misconduct. The standard of discipline attributed to working journalists compared to other employees governed by the Payment of Gratuity Act is more rigorous and harsh.
13. Counsel for the Management also placed considerable reliance on Section 16 of the Working Journalists Act, which reads as follows:
16. Effect of laws and agreements inconsistent with this Act. (1) The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law or in the terms of any award, agreement or contract or service, whether made before or after the commencement of this Act;
Provided that where under any such award, agreement, contract of service or otherwise, a newspaper employee is entitled to benefits in respect of any matter which are more favourable to him than those to which he would be entitled under this Act, the newspaper employees shall continue to be entitled to the more favourable benefits in respect of that matter, notwithstanding that he receives benefits in respect of other matters under this Act.
(2) Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to preclude any newspaper employee from entering into an agreement with an employer for granting him rights or privileges in respect of any matter which are more favourable to him than those to which he would be entitled under this Act.
Counsel submitted provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any of the law made before or after the commencement of the Act. Counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted since Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act is more favourable to the working journalists by virtue of the proviso to Section 16, they are entitled to all the benefits of Section 4 of the Gratuity Act. We find it difficult to accept that contention. Section 16 states that the provisions of the Working Journalists Act will have effect over anything inconsistent with what is contained in any other law, award, agreement or contract of service. Proviso states under such award, agreement, contract of service or otherwise the employee is entitled to get any benefits more favourable to him, he will get that benefit. But the question is whether he is eligible to such benefits under the Payment of Gratuity Act. We have already held that he is not legally eligible to get the benefit of gratuity under the Gratuity Act and hence the question whether the benefit is favourable or not does not arise.
14. Payment of Gratuity Act is an Act generally applicable only to those persons who fall under that Act. Working Journalists Act, in our view, is a special legislation meant for a specified category of persons. Working Journalists Act is a previous special law and the earlier law can be altered, upgraded or replaced only by an express provision. Section 14 of the Gratuity Act does not specifically or expressly override the provisions of the Working Journalists Act. The Working Journalists Act is not only confined to payment of gratuity alone, whereas the Payment of Gratuity Act is a law exclusively dealing with gratuity. A special enactment can be overridden by a later general enactment only in cases where it is established that two are so repugnant to each other then (sic) they cannot co-exist even though no express provision in that behalf is found in the general law. The Karnataka High Court in Management of Indian Express Madurai (P) Ltd, v. Jaswant J.M. and Ors. 1998-II- LLJ-916 (DB) also the Rajasthan High Court in Daily Navajyoti, Aimer v. Appointed Authority 1998-II-LLJ-705 (Raj-DB) have accepted the same view. We are in full agreement with the decisions.
15. Apex Court in B.R. Enterprises v. State of U.P. held that old golden rule is of respecting the wisdom of legislature that they are aware of the law and would never have intended for an invalid legislation and would also keep Courts within their track and checks individual zeal of going wayward. In Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India the Apex Court held:
Another principle which has to be borne in mind in examining the constitutionality of a statute is that it must be assumed that the legislature understands and appreciates the need of the people and the laws it enact are directed to problems which are made manifest by experience and that the elected representatives assembled in a legislature enact laws which they consider to be reasonable for the purpose for which they are enacted.
The Apex Court in State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery Ltd. held that the Act made by the Legislature represents will of people and that cannot be lightly interfered with. Unconstitutionality must be plainly and clearly established before the enactment is declared void.
16. Learned single Judge, in our view, was therefore not justified in reading down the words "other than a punishment inflicted by disciplinary action" used in Section 5(l)(a)(i) of the Working Journalists Act so as to be in tune with the Payment of Gratuity Act. The principle of reading down, in our view, should be normally done, of any term used in a statute in order to make it constitutionally valid. So far as this case is concerned, both the provisions are constitutionally valid and the Court in its wisdom cannot rewrite the provisions so as to make the Working Journalists Act in pari materia with the Payment of Gratuity Act.
17. We are therefore of the view, learned single Judge has clearly missed the above mentioned constitutional principles and committed a grave error in holding that the last part of Section 5(l)(a)(i) is violative of Articles 14 of the Constitution of India and also by reading down the words "otherwise than as punishment by disciplinary action" used in Section 5(l)(a)(i) of the Working Journalists Act so as to make it in tune with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. We are therefore inclined to set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and allow the appeal. We do so.